Return of Mac Clones?

[Lynxpro]

Apple does listen to consumers if the product fits into their strategy.

Yeah....if only they'd listen to the people asking for OGG/FLAC/APE support on the iPods, they'd run iRiver out of business.

You'd think running another (albeit "small") competitor out of the market would be of strategic interest to Apple. Especially when such formats are free/open-source and have no chance of threatening AAC+FairPlay.

 

[ffakr]

the situation is different now

When Apple originially let people clone the Mac, the cloners were making it to market before Apple with faster Chips. Motorola and IBM did not have the capacity (dedicated to PPC) to pump new chip revs out fast enough so that Apple had immediate volume to ship. As a result, the Cloners happily shipped the chips when they started to trickle off the production line.
The Cloners also had more room to differentiate. Motorola Mac clones had PS2 ports.

Apple tried to slow the release of other machines by forcing all hardware to get certified by Apple. This didn't work.. enough. It did, however, ensure that the clones were just as stable as an Apple Mac. The clones didn't fail, the succeeded too much. Apple didn't charge enough licensing to cover R&D so the cloners killed them on price. Apple was hobbled by slow chip roll outs.

So, fast forward to now:
Apple will be buying fully integrated solutions from Intel. Intel will produce the CPU, the chipsets, and the motherboards (most likely the motherboards too unless Apple produces reference designs).
There will be no advantage to the clones in availability as Apple will have 1st tier access to reference designs (they are certainly no smaller than a major 3rd party MB manufacturer like FIC or probably even Asus).
Also, Apple will use Intel's TPM (Trusted Platform Module) to make sure OS X only runs on the machines they want it run on so they can still exert control over the clone release dates. They can also control their components to some small extent.
Apple will likely be more expensive (though the switch to Intel will drastically cut Mac R&D leveling the playing field substatially)

If Apple does produce their own boards from reference designs they can still add value to an Apple Mac. Company Foo might make a cheaper Mac but Apple can make the Intel Reference design that has built in FW and Airport and a super-doohicky-9000.

I think Apple can make a better run at cloning now than before. The situation is different and they've learned from their past mistakes.

I don't think they can simply open up OSX to any PC though. With out the TPM security, it will be way to easy for any PC user to download an OS X Torrent and run it with no license. The only options would be really restrictive registrations of the OS (a huge user hassle that has caused backlash on other packages/OSes) or some other manner to crack down on hackers (like changing reg codes on every update so people would have to reinstall and continually hack the new versions). It would be a huge mess.
I don't doubt that TPM will be hacked. If you give someone the software, they'll break it. It's like hiding a secret in a box, but giving everyone that box to do what they will with it.
Remember, the PC community is much more dis-honest than the Mac community when it comes to software. I don't know anyone who has bought their MS Windows (except when it's shipped on a shrink wrapped computer and my friends always reinstall anyway).

ffakr.

 

[FaasNat]

So, will Hell freeze over again?

First the iTunes for Windows
Then Mac OS X on Intel
Now the return of the Clones??

Nah.... was a bad idea then, is a bad idea now. Same ol' story: it will cannablize the Apple hardware sales.

Just thinking about the statement regarding clones affecting Apple's hardware sales. If there's all this talk about everyone wanting Apple computers and not ugly generic looking computers, why would clones cannibalize Apple hardware sales?

Going on the car analogy thing, everybody may want the BMW over the Volkswagon, but most people may only be able to afford the Volkswagon. Heh, I always chuckle when I see a reference to the car analogy, cuz I would like to be driving a M3, but a Civic is what sits in my garage.

Anyways, the looks of the hardware don't matter too much to me. It sits way under my desk where no one can really see it. For me, it's the OS that runs on the thing that matters.

 

[w_parietti22]

*Pictures a Dell running Mac OS X*

ack!

 

[Lynxpro]

News flash, I'm not talking about video cards ...
In the market for pro audio cards/sata cards/SCSI cards/etc. for your new dual core PowerMac, where are the cards? it's been a long time and Apple is the "last" to switch.
Who will force the market to switch faster, Apple or Dell?
With Dell, there isn't an incentive for these companies to switch quickly, since they have PCI slots for backward compatibility.

There aren't enough computers (period) amongst the installed user base with PCIe support to merit any of the companies into abandoning PCI in favor of PCIe for anything but videocards. Look back to how long it took to kill off ISA. That was a good 6+ years since the introduction of PCI.

Its all about installed base. Not Apple joining the fold.

And you cannot even use the USB analogy from the original iMac because it would take ALL Apple Macs to have open PCIe slots to create such a spark. Do you see open PCIe slots on the Mac Mini or the iMac?

 

[pmoeser]

That would be an option I might consider being plausible

I predict a strategic alliance with Sony and a VIAO with OS X first.

I have had that very discussion with friends over here.
Sony make the best looking pc laptops
Apple make the best laptops and OS
If Apple wanted to extend their hardware reach, at least Sony can make it look good.
It would also expand other opportunities if Sony were to buy/invest in Apple: Sony getting a hold of the portable music player market again
Apple getting the full catalogue of SonyBMG worldwide
SonyEriccsonApple Mobile phone
AppleSony media centres for the home
Think about it
Think different
It makes some sense

 

[nghtstr]

Bad Move...

Doesn't make any real sense with the switch to x86. If Apple wants, it can just allow OSX to be run on any PC. Why bother licensing the hardware? Just go for the software sales to existing PC owners.

The problem with that is that Apple doesn't enjoy the market share needed to do an all-software position right now. They don't have the number of applications out there yet, and people would not want to install a brand new OS on their existing machines.

Also, couple with the fact of just what kind of hardware are you going to allow to be used?? Microsoft has been trying to deal with issue for the past 15+ years. They haven't been able to get it right yet. (Side note: i don't think the WANT to get it right, but that is a different discussion).

So, as much as I want to see the Mac OS X running on my Athalon 2800+ that I have, I don't think that it is a wise decision to make. I'll keep it on my iMac G5.

 

[Sun Baked]

There aren't enough computers (period) amongst the installed user base with PCIe support to merit any of the companies into abandoning PCI in favor of PCIe for anything but videocards. Look back to how long it took to kill off ISA. That was a good 6+ years since the introduction of PCI.

Its all about installed base. Not Apple joining the fold.

And you cannot even use the USB analogy from the original iMac because it would take ALL Apple Macs to have open PCIe slots to create such a spark. Do you see open PCIe slots on the Mac Mini or the iMac?

Actually Apple did kill off PCI support for all their machines going forward.

Many of the pro-tool/card markets are quickly announcing upgrades to PCI-Express to accomodate the new machines -- or basically they are eliminating Apple users as customers in the future.

PC makers continually accomodate older technologies to make people happy -- Apple usually doesn't.

It's not always about installed base, sometimes it's about keeping a niche market segment as a customer.

 

[FaasNat]

It didn't capture a significant portion of new user sales like everyone thought it would.

All the cheap Mac clones did was sell cheap Mac clones to current Mac users, decimating Apple hardware sales.

The growth of new Mac users at the time wasn't too significant, making the clones a major disaster.

I think maybe Apple should've gather from this that maybe people don't need great looking Apple quality computers, but cheaper clones that run the Mac OS is satisfactory.

I like the idea of having clones. As long as Apple plays it right and doesn't lose all of their revenue to the clones. Oh, and that the clonse are priced much lower -- wouldn't do any good if they're the same prices as the Apple systems. On a very limited budget and can't afford the nice PowerMacs (the Mini and iMac don't do it for me -- would like to upgrade my video card eventually and have a PCI based TV tuner card that I use).

 

[JRM PowerPod]

I have had that very discussion with friends over here.
Sony make the best looking pc laptops
Apple make the best laptops and OS
If Apple wanted to extend their hardware reach, at least Sony can make it look good.
It would also expand other opportunities if Sony were to buy/invest in Apple: Sony getting a hold of the portable music player market again
Apple getting the full catalogue of SonyBMG worldwide
SonyEriccsonApple Mobile phone
AppleSony media centres for the home
Think about it
Think different
It makes some sense

It would be a marvellous day, as my two favourite companies would be teaming up to destroy microsoft.

It would be brilliant

brilliant indeed

 

[FaasNat]

[...]
Companies survive off of profit, not margins. 50% margins on a $100 product is not as profitable as 30% margins on a $3000 product.
[...]

Unless they sold 19 of the $100 product to every 1 of the $3000 product.

 

[Lynxpro]

Actually Apple did kill off PCI support for all their machines going forward.

I said for Apple to ship all their machines with PCIe support. Not simply killing off PCI.

Apple killed non-USB legacy ports in 1997. The PC industry still ships PCs with PS/2 ports in 2005.

So your analogy is moot when it comes to Apple's influence in killing off legacy tech for the "next big thing". Some PCs still have floppy drives installed.

 

[Lynxpro]

I have had that very discussion with friends over here.
Sony make the best looking pc laptops
Apple make the best laptops and OS
If Apple wanted to extend their hardware reach, at least Sony can make it look good.
It would also expand other opportunities if Sony were to buy/invest in Apple: Sony getting a hold of the portable music player market again
Apple getting the full catalogue of SonyBMG worldwide
SonyEriccsonApple Mobile phone
AppleSony media centres for the home
Think about it
Think different
It makes some sense

SonyBMG Music is co-owned with Bertlesman. So just because Apple would become a Sony subsidiary does not mean it being granted the entire SonyBMG catalog.

AOL didn't exactly prosper under TimeWarner's mismanagement. They never even got an exclusive ISP agreement with sister company TimeWarner Cable.

WarnerMusic was such a pain in the ass that TimeWarner sold it off to the private investment group headed by that moron Edgar Bronfman.

 

[FaasNat]

They should expand the gaming market. All that great hardware, and no games utilize it. where can i get a mac version of FFXI?

Yeah, I agree. I think having more of the games available for the Mac would help with marketshare. All of my friends won't buy a Mac because there aren't Mac versions available of the games they're playing and would like to play.

 

[EricNau]

PLEASE NOOOOOOOO!!!! AHHHHHH!!!
-Apple wouldn't do this to me, would they?

 

[FaasNat]

Why do people buy Apple Cinema displays when they could buy cheaper models from the actual manufacturer who produces the product? Or buy the same thing at below cost from Dell?

Beats me...

Why do people buy iPods that have traditionally been more expensive than the competition?

Well, from the people I know who have iPods that previously had other MP3 players, the interface is nicer, smoother, etc. etc. compared to their old players. I don't think it mattered to them what the underlying hardware was or who made it.

Why do people still buy iBooks/Powerbooks when laptops in PC land have Pentium processors that run laps around the G4?

Well.... currently, Pentium based laptops don't run Mac OS X, which is the best OS out there to run .

 

[Sun Baked]

I said for Apple to ship all their machines with PCIe support. Not simply killing off PCI.

Apple killed non-USB legacy ports in 1997. The PC industry still ships PCs with PS/2 ports in 2005.

So your analogy is moot when it comes to Apple's influence in killing off legacy tech for the "next big thing". Some PCs still have floppy drives installed.

And you just keep proving how innovative the PC market is.

They're motto is backward compatibility.

First thing clone maker would do to a Mac, is add a PCI slot to Apple's reference design.

Innovation is about driving things forward, and Dell is still driving backwards.

 

[fatfish]

Mmmmm

Obviously, someone at silicon.com has left the keys out for the drinks cabinet.

 

[MacSlut]

A lot has changed since the last time

I could see Apple licensing to Dell and HP. A few things have changed since the last time.

One is that a vendor would only have to license the OS, no full motherboard licensing required or hardware issues. Dell/HP could build as usual and then have OS X and a BTO option. Heck, they could offer Windows *and* OS X as an option.

There are some interesting Apple patents in regards to the possibility of being able to run multiple OSs at the same time, which would totally rock.

So this would be *much* easier and inexpensive for the major vendors. Also, Apple makes more money now by selling OS upgrades, iLife and other software, as well as iPods, music downloads, video downloads, Airports, iSights, etc...

If a person was going to buy a Dell, and on check out see that they have a $50-$100 option to buy it with OS X, who loses?

And of course for special promos, Dell could include iLife or other bundling.

This is much different from some bit player making a huge investment in going in as a Mac cloner.

 

[Claymore]

Couldn't apple sell some kind of a usb dongel or something, to control which pc's os x is installed on

 

[EricNau]

If this is true (and I hope it's not) I would expect Apple to limit to only one vendor, and put strict guidelines for the hardware, that the manufacturer would have to follow.
I don't think it would be a BTO option, I would expect it would be its own line of computers.
But what would be the point, if they don't like Apple computers, why would they buy a "PC" with OS X on it? What would be the difference between a Powermac, and some "PC" made by dell running OS X? Cheaper maybe?

 

[rlwimi]

Apple spends less than $20 million per year on OS X development as it is. Read the financial reports.

Besides, if Apple can't work on it anymore, Google will just buy it up. Google can sneeze $20 million.

Uh, no...but that was funny someone would think that Apple could spend only 20 million a year on OS X.

OS X was a walking corpse of an OS the day IBM dumped Apple as a customer. Apple is internally preparing to be post OS X company media company.

 

[iMeowbot]

Couldn't apple sell some kind of a usb dongel or something, to control which pc's os x is installed on

They do have one already, the XSkey for Logic.

 

[egor]

Apple is a $50 billion market value company because of the iPod. Microsoft does not have an iPod. Thus your analogy is flawed.

Uhh, what? I didn't think I'd have to state the obvious but..

The estimated gross margins on iPods in the last quarter was 22%.. compared to more than an average of 28% on apple computers..

.."Apple shipped 1,236,000 Macintosh® units and 6,451,000 iPods" during the last quarter..

..the "analogy" still stands.

 

[EricNau]

I don't get it.
The main reason why people don't buy Mac is because of the OS (I've never heard anyone say they don't like Apple Hardware).
Everyone I know loves the hardware of Apple, just not the OS (mostly because it isn't as compatible as Windows).
Putting OS X on a Dell wouldn't change any of this, would it? It would still be the same OS, just on a cheaper "piece of junk."
Correct me if Im wrong, but putting OS X on a PC wouldn't suddenly make everything compatible with it.